By Jay D. Homnick on 9.11.09 @ 6:06AM
Raising health care to support taxes.
The late Milton Berle loved the story of the Senator who took to
the Senate floor to deliver a long pompous presentation about
something or other. Later he met a constituent and asked: "Did
you hear my last speech?"
"I certainly hope so."
Much the same sentiment extends to the most recent effort by
Barack Obama. His address to a joint, i.e. to a session of
Congress, got plenty of attendance and very little attention. He
was trying to explain how he could insure the health of all
without impacting their wealth, unlike the thousands of highly
trained executives and actuaries in the private field of medical
coverage. At that point, Joe Wilson called him a liar, which is
no surprise, since Joe Wilson also called President Bush a liar,
and can Valerie Plame be far behind?
Realistically, however, it occurs to me that most of the analysis
of this and other speeches by Obama about health care misses the
point. They proceed from the premise that there is a goal in the
medical or health realm Obama is pursuing, and the question is
how much tax money will be required. The liberal commentators
assume -- at least in their public rhetoric -- his medical goal
to be in good faith, while conservatives assign more ominous
considerations: control over the economy, over life and death,
over the behavior of individuals.
Indeed the opposite is more accurately the case. Taxes will not
be raised to support health care, but health care must be raised
to support taxes. The larger vision of Obama's approach to each
separate issue is to see how government can manage the solution.
To establish government in this position of power taxes must fill
the coffers and empty the wallets.
In the wake of the Reagan revolution, the Feds only get four of
every ten dollars earned by the most productive Americans. That
figure was seven of ten as recently as 1982, before Kemp, Roth
and Reagan succeeded in changing the law. Since then the culture
has changed to match their handiwork. Young Americans cannot
conceive of a 70 percent tax and are shocked to hear it was the
norm so recently.
The idea of instituting this huge overhaul of the medical system
is a fig leaf for the broader idea of taxing much more and
spending much more. Remember, Obama not only offered a record 1.8
trillion deficit for 2009, he has asked for no deficit less than
a trillion in each of the next eight years -- the two terms he
hopes to serve. This despite the fact no prior deficit ever
exceeded 450 billion!
If Obama cannot pass health care legislation, he is left without
an excuse for the vast buildup in taxation, appropriation and
government hiring he envisions. He needs to sell the image of the
great national transformation, the new contract between the
government and the citizenry. You should excuse the expression… a
New Deal. If he has no big deal to show for all his bluster, his
new deal is too obviously a rip-off.
So we need big noise about seemingly big projects to spawn big
money for big government so Obama and Biden and Pelosi et al. can
feel like big people doing big things. As for us small fry with
our small lives and small ideas, we can spend what money we have
left on getting a good shrink. At least until Tipper Gore gets
mental health into the hands of government.
Is this history repeating itself? No, it is copycat history, a
self-conscious attempt to prove after all that Roosevelt was the
champ and Reagan was the chump (with the chimp -- remember
Bedtime for Bonzo?). Somehow all this hindsight is terribly
meaningful to the Democrat psyche. It is more poignant in Obama's
eyes for him to be the second coming of Roosevelt than to be
something original, creative and individualistic.
Which leaves us with another relevant political gag from Uncle
Miltie. The fellow calls his Congressman's local office and yells
at the young staffer who picks up the phone: "How quickly can you
guys spend a billion dollars?"
"Just a moment, sir."
"Ah, just as I thought…"
